Cargando…
Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy for the Treatment of Recurrent Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Meta-analysis
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the incidence and safety of clinical complications associated with percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) for the treatment of recurrent lumbar disc herniation (RLDH) by meta-analysis. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and Web of Science electronic datab...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Hindawi
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9482522/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36124069 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2022/6488674 |
_version_ | 1784791474495291392 |
---|---|
author | Zhao, Ke Li, Lin-Da Li, Tong-Tong Xiong, Yong |
author_facet | Zhao, Ke Li, Lin-Da Li, Tong-Tong Xiong, Yong |
author_sort | Zhao, Ke |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the incidence and safety of clinical complications associated with percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) for the treatment of recurrent lumbar disc herniation (RLDH) by meta-analysis. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and Web of Science electronic databases were searched for clinical studies on complications related to the treatment of RLDH with PELD. The search time extended from the databases' inception until May 2021. RevMan5.4 software was used for meta-analysis after two researchers independently scanned the literature, gathered data, and assessed the bias risk of the included studies. RESULTS: A total of 8 clinical studies, including 1 randomized controlled trial and 7 cohort studies including 906 individuals, were included. According to the results of the meta-analysis, the overall complications (OR = 0.18, 95% CI: 0.04-0.83, p = 0.03) and dural tear rates (OR = 0.11, 95% CI: 0.01-0.92, p = 0.04) of PELD were lower than those of traditional fenestration nucleus pulposus removal. Moreover, the PELD group had a greater recurrence rate compared to the MIS-TLIF group (OR = 19.71, 95% CI: 3.68-105.62, p = 0.0005), and the difference was statistically significant. However, compared with MED and MIS-TLIF, there were no significant differences in the incidence of overall complications, dural tear, nerve root injury, and incomplete nucleus pulposus removal (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: PELD is an effective and safe method for the treatment of recurrent lumbar disc herniation, with a lower incidence of complications and higher safety profile than traditional fenestration nucleus pulposus removal. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9482522 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Hindawi |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-94825222022-09-18 Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy for the Treatment of Recurrent Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Meta-analysis Zhao, Ke Li, Lin-Da Li, Tong-Tong Xiong, Yong Biomed Res Int Research Article OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the incidence and safety of clinical complications associated with percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) for the treatment of recurrent lumbar disc herniation (RLDH) by meta-analysis. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and Web of Science electronic databases were searched for clinical studies on complications related to the treatment of RLDH with PELD. The search time extended from the databases' inception until May 2021. RevMan5.4 software was used for meta-analysis after two researchers independently scanned the literature, gathered data, and assessed the bias risk of the included studies. RESULTS: A total of 8 clinical studies, including 1 randomized controlled trial and 7 cohort studies including 906 individuals, were included. According to the results of the meta-analysis, the overall complications (OR = 0.18, 95% CI: 0.04-0.83, p = 0.03) and dural tear rates (OR = 0.11, 95% CI: 0.01-0.92, p = 0.04) of PELD were lower than those of traditional fenestration nucleus pulposus removal. Moreover, the PELD group had a greater recurrence rate compared to the MIS-TLIF group (OR = 19.71, 95% CI: 3.68-105.62, p = 0.0005), and the difference was statistically significant. However, compared with MED and MIS-TLIF, there were no significant differences in the incidence of overall complications, dural tear, nerve root injury, and incomplete nucleus pulposus removal (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: PELD is an effective and safe method for the treatment of recurrent lumbar disc herniation, with a lower incidence of complications and higher safety profile than traditional fenestration nucleus pulposus removal. Hindawi 2022-09-10 /pmc/articles/PMC9482522/ /pubmed/36124069 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2022/6488674 Text en Copyright © 2022 Ke Zhao et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Zhao, Ke Li, Lin-Da Li, Tong-Tong Xiong, Yong Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy for the Treatment of Recurrent Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Meta-analysis |
title | Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy for the Treatment of Recurrent Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Meta-analysis |
title_full | Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy for the Treatment of Recurrent Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Meta-analysis |
title_fullStr | Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy for the Treatment of Recurrent Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Meta-analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy for the Treatment of Recurrent Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Meta-analysis |
title_short | Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy for the Treatment of Recurrent Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Meta-analysis |
title_sort | percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for the treatment of recurrent lumbar disc herniation: a meta-analysis |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9482522/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36124069 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2022/6488674 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT zhaoke percutaneousendoscopiclumbardiscectomyforthetreatmentofrecurrentlumbardischerniationametaanalysis AT lilinda percutaneousendoscopiclumbardiscectomyforthetreatmentofrecurrentlumbardischerniationametaanalysis AT litongtong percutaneousendoscopiclumbardiscectomyforthetreatmentofrecurrentlumbardischerniationametaanalysis AT xiongyong percutaneousendoscopiclumbardiscectomyforthetreatmentofrecurrentlumbardischerniationametaanalysis |